Where I'm from (that being Richmond, VA), when you turn on the radio to any nearby rock station, you'll hear nothing but songs from 5 to 10 years ago, played so many times it's like their new. And they aren't good songs. Disturbed, Godsmack...Nickelback. You get the picture.

However, when you turn on the TV or pop in a movie, you can't help but here at least one indie song slashed in there. Andrew Bird on the Marriot Hotel commercial, Architecture in Helsinki on the Microsoft commercial, and countless numbers of indie songs played in movies that the general public watch each and everyday. Now, I ask the question. Why is it good enough to be played on these commercials and in these movies, but not good enough for the radio? Why can't I just be driving down the road and turn on the radio to hear good music for once?

quote:

Originally posted by modestaretaloger:
Now, I ask the question. Why is it good enough to be played on these commercials and in these movies, but not good enough for the radio? Why can't I just be driving down the road and turn on the radio to hear good music for once?

I've often wondered this very same thing. I really have yet to come with a good answer other than the fact that the creative people that work in advertising probably listen to a much broader spectrum of music than the suits programming Clear Channel's playlists. This is a big reason I don't give any 'indie' artist too much grief for getting their music on a commercial (I am still a little flustered that Tim Barnes would actually alter the lyrics of his song for a commercial, but that's a separate issue entirely). It's really the only way for some artists to get their songs heard by large numbers of people.

$$$

The advantage to having a song from a big name is recognition, but because of that recognition it's going to cost more money for the rights (or however they do it) to use the song. An indie group needs exposure and don't have that recognition, so a marketing agency can get the song for cheap and hope that it will be catchy enough that people will start to recognize it.

Another theory I have is that indie music is "strange" to the general public. "The Hills Have Eyes 2" used a Devendra Banhart song (can't remember which now) in their trailer. Now why would they use this song? Well, to people used to radio-friendly music, his voice and chord progression is going to come off as really unsettling and eerie.

Why can't you hear it n the radio? Because the majority of America really really like the prepackaged, easily digestable pop. They don't want to be challenged because music, to most, is just background noise, something to cheer them up and get stuck in their head. If it takes too much attention then they're not going to be interested, generally, because they're too busy for "something so petty." And people who are younger just aren't exposed to as much music as they should be, so when they're trying to find themselves, chances are they will grab onto the overly emotional, easily swallowed stuff on their local alternative radio.

quote:

Originally posted by Maximum Jack:

quote:

Originally posted by modestaretaloger:
Now, I ask the question. Why is it good enough to be played on these commercials and in these movies, but not good enough for the radio? Why can't I just be driving down the road and turn on the radio to hear good music for once?

I've often wondered this very same thing. I really have yet to come with a good answer other than the fact that the creative people that work in advertising probably listen to a much broader spectrum of music than the suits programming Clear Channel's playlists. This is a big reason I don't give any 'indie' artist too much grief for getting their music on a commercial (I am still a little flustered that Tim Barnes would actually alter the lyrics of his song for a commercial, but that's a separate issue entirely). It's really the only way for some artists to get their songs heard by large numbers of people.

Do you mean Kevin Barnes, for Outback Steakhouse? He admitted later that he was on some serious anti-depressants at the time and wouldn't do the same thing if presented with the choice again. As for why he was on anti-depressants, just give "Hissing Fauna" a listen to figure that out.

quote:

Originally posted by The Texas Chamberk Massacre:
As for why he was on anti-depressants, just give "Hissing Fauna" a listen to figure that out.

Or any other of Montreal album? Haha

quote:

Originally posted by JGlass:

quote:

Originally posted by The Texas Chamberk Massacre:
As for why he was on anti-depressants, just give "Hissing Fauna" a listen to figure that out.

Or any other of Montreal album? Haha

Maybe. Also, I think it's decent that he used the money that he got from that commercial to make sure ticket prices were cheaper for upcoming tours. I saw them for $8 and $10 in the last year, respectively.

The radio is another form of media and every type of media requires MONEY to function.

The radio station I listen to (rarely now) does play songs by Canadian indie bands but I believe it's more because they have to under CRTC regulations.

I think major record labels have a strong hold on the content that is played. Their job is to market and maximize dollars so getting their songs played on radio is a big deal. A lot of the commercials for radio stations (other then being for beer and condoms) usually advertise an album being on sale etc. Those types of commercials probably bring in a decent amount of revenue and there is always a rule you have to cater to your advertisers. It makes sense why music channels play some of the worst music.

As for television and movies, it is really hard to sell music as a product since it has nothing to do with the content. For films I think it's more about the artistry when including the "perfect" song for a scene so it doesn't matter.

I think for commercials it's more about having a different sound from the "norm". The point of a commercial is to get your attention in a matter of 30 seconds so to use something different yet poppy looks like a realistically way to go.

As for the money with commercials, aren't some indie bands hesitant to become "sell outs"? Most pop artists have no integrity anyway so I assume it would be easier for them to get more mainstream songs.

quote:

Originally posted by achengy:
As for the money with commercials, aren't some indie bands hesitant to become "sell outs"? Most pop artists have no integrity anyway so I assume it would be easier for them to get more mainstream songs.

Some are, but I'd be willing to bet that most would take the chance (i.e. Air, Wilco, Postal Service, Kevin Barnes jingle, etc) The funny thing is, I hate "sell-outs" but I still love Wilco, Air, the Postal Service, and of Montreal. When an indie band manages to make money AND continues making good music, I support them all the way. They're doing what it takes.. but if they go major and change their sound then I'm not cool (unless that change means we get a Yankee Hotel Foxtrot )

people like pop music. thats what makes it pop. even though alot of people like "indie" music.. its such an huge genre* (*for lack of a better word) that each individual(no pun intended) band doesn't have the same sort of fan base behind it as "pop. bands" - Most likely why indie music get little radio play.

quote:

Originally posted by achengy:
As for television and movies, it is really hard to sell music as a product since it has nothing to do with the content. For films I think it's more about the artistry when including the "perfect" song for a scene so it doesn't matter.

I think for commercials it's more about having a different sound from the "norm". The point of a commercial is to get your attention in a matter of 30 seconds so to use something different yet poppy looks like a realistically way to go.
.

excellent

quote:

Originally posted by modestaretaloger:
Where I'm from (that being Richmond, VA), when you turn on the radio to any nearby rock station, you'll hear nothing but songs from 5 to 10 years ago, played so many times it's like their new. And they aren't good songs. Disturbed, Godsmack...Nickelback. You get the picture.

This may come as a shock, but there are actually a lot more people that like these bands than your typical indie band. Luckily, there are some decent internet radio stations that actually play good stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by The Texas Chamberk Massacreo you mean Kevin Barnes, for Outback Steakhouse? He admitted later that he was on some serious anti-depressants at the time and wouldn't do the same thing if presented with the choice again.

Thanks for that explanation, I did not know that and that makes it a little easier for me to digest.

Interestingly enough, np: "Requiem for O.M.M.2"

I think this is a great thread. I have never thought about radio vs. commercials/movies/TV in quite this way before, so thanks for bringing this up.

The argument that licensing songs is the "new radio" for a lot of bands makes sense. If someone is willing to pay you to expose your music to a large audience, why wouldn't you use it to your advantage? I believe that Wilco has used this as a defense of it selling its songs to that series of VW commercials.

It's a good argument, EXCEPT, the artist no longer has little or no control of how the music is perceived by the listener.

Michael Stipe has said that music videos cheapened the artistic impact and mystery of songs. Songs are meant to create images in listeners. I agree to a certain point. If a music video that the band helped create has this effect, what is the effect of music being tied to an advertisement made by someone at a big ad firm?

One major drawback to that Wilco VW campaign is that those songs live for me in the world that was created to sell those cars.

quote:

Originally posted by wilsonna:
It's a good argument, EXCEPT, the artist no longer has little or no control of how the music is perceived by the listener.

Michael Stipe has said that music videos cheapened the artistic impact and mystery of songs. Songs are meant to create images in listeners. I agree to a certain point. If a music video that the band helped create has this effect, what is the effect of music being tied to an advertisement made by someone at a big ad firm?

One major drawback to that Wilco VW campaign is that those songs live for me in the world that was created to sell those cars.

Good points. I know that the songs I've heard on commercials have been affected by how many times I've seen the commercial. The more I saw the car commercial with Air's "Floating On A Rocket," the more I want to skip it when I play the album. I don't hear Sky Blue Sky now without thinking of those cheesy commercials, good for marketing but bad for myself and Wilco. It'll expose people to their music and maybe get new fans, but at the same time it'll succeed in annoying the fans by being bombarded with something they may have held private (I tend to make the albums that I like a lot very personal and get very wrapped up in them) and making it seem like a commodity (which music has become but shouldn't be).

I've never been a fan of music videos. I've never understood their point, but I've never been a fan of singles either. I've grown up with my parents listening to CDs in the car more than radio, so I've taken the album format to heart. A music video does seem like it could ruin a fan's perception of a song (unless it's an of Montreal video or something that is just completely absurd rather than concrete). It's like reading a book and then seeing the movie version, the movie isn't as good because it interprets the book differently than you may have (among other things).

I absolutely love indie music, but I can't help but think that it might have to do with the length of a lot of the songs. It's pretty easy to find a great 30 seconds (or less) of a song, but maybe a radio station doesn't want to play 5 (or more) minute songs.

Before everyone gets mad, I know their are hundreds of shorter indie songs, but I think in general the songs are longer than radio likes song to be. I think that may be one of the problems.

quote:

Originally posted by JGlass:
Good points. I know that the songs I've heard on commercials have been affected by how many times I've seen the commercial. The more I saw the car commercial with Air's "Floating On A Rocket," the more I want to skip it when I play the album. I don't hear Sky Blue Sky now without thinking of those cheesy commercials, good for marketing but bad for myself and Wilco.

The Wilco commercials don't especially bother me. I kinda like 'em and I'm not that thrilled with Sky Blue Sky. But I totally get your drift. Classical music has been spoiled for me by Major Motion Picture Soundtracks. I can't listen to a piece of classical music without trying to figure out what movie I've heard it in before, or making up some cheesy scene in my head to go along with it. A lot of Sinatra's most famous songs are in the same boat.

[now back to your regularly scheduled program]

One of my favorite songs, "The Bleeding Heart Show" off of Twin Cinema, always brings a cheap fly-by-night "university" to mind now. :\

quote:

Originally posted by besttasteinmusicever:
I absolutely love indie music, but I can't help but think that it might have to do with the length of a lot of the songs. It's pretty easy to find a great 30 seconds (or less) of a song, but maybe a radio station doesn't want to play 5 (or more) minute songs.

Before everyone gets mad, I know their are hundreds of shorter indie songs, but I think in general the songs are longer than radio likes song to be. I think that may be one of the problems.

Although I'll agree that the length of songs may have a small factor in why indie songs don't get radio play but I figure it has a lot more to do with control. The major four major labels and the major media conglomerations that own most of the radio stations use their influence (read: money) to ensure that certain artists get enough radio play. Case in point: at an old job I had one of the local R&B/Hip Hop stations that was often put on by some of my coworkers would play Kanye's Gold Digger and Gwen Steffani's Hollaback Girl every hour. You could possibly chalk this up to overplaying the current "top hits" of the moment but there's been enough controversy surrounding payola scandals and coercion between major labels and radio stations for me to believe this to be the major reason smaller labels/bands aren't able to get on the airwaves. They just simply don't have the money, power or influence to buy the play time.

quote:

Originally posted by nmeiborg:

quote:

Originally posted by besttasteinmusicever:
I absolutely love indie music, but I can't help but think that it might have to do with the length of a lot of the songs. It's pretty easy to find a great 30 seconds (or less) of a song, but maybe a radio station doesn't want to play 5 (or more) minute songs.

Before everyone gets mad, I know their are hundreds of shorter indie songs, but I think in general the songs are longer than radio likes song to be. I think that may be one of the problems.

Although I'll agree that the length of songs may have a small factor in why indie songs don't get radio play but I figure it has a lot more to do with control. The major four major labels and the major media conglomerations that own most of the radio stations use their influence (read: money) to ensure that certain artists get enough radio play. Case in point: at an old job I had one of the local R&B/Hip Hop stations that was often put on by some of my coworkers would play Kanye's Gold Digger and Gwen Steffani's Hollaback Girl every hour. You could possibly chalk this up to overplaying the current "top hits" of the moment but there's been enough controversy surrounding payola scandals and coercion between major labels and radio stations for me to believe this to be the major reason smaller labels/bands aren't able to get on the airwaves. They just simply don't have the money, power or influence to buy the play time.

This is very true. When I worked at the record store, we would get playlists from all the main radio stations in town and it was ridiculous. The top singles would get 100+ spins per week! Think about it. If the song is 3 minutes long and it's played 100 times, that is five hours of music time for one crappy song. Contrast that with the local college station which would give it's top tracks maybe 20-25 spins per week.

Maybe I've had a better experience than most because of the cities I've lived, but it definitely seems to me that rock radio has improved/warmed to indie music somewhat in the last 5 or 10 years. I grew up in Maryland and listened to the now-defunct WHFS, which played a good amount of generic stuff but also then-edgy stuff like Muse, At the Drive-in, etc. (they were also responsible for bringing to the world Maryland darlings Good Charlotte and SR-71) HFS also had features like "Lunch at the Archives", which included a lot of 80s proto-indie and left-field 90s stuff. Also, the HFStival featured quite a few indie bands... in 2004 I saw Interpol, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Living End, and others.

Now I live in Pasadena and occasionally listen to KROQ. Again, they play a lot of crap, but I've heard stuff like Feist, Brightblack Morning Light, Silversun Pickups, TV on the Radio, Modest Mouse, etc.

In my view, radio stations have expanded their indie lineup as indie has come to greater public acceptance (post-O.C.), but they're still behind the "state-of-the-art" for indie fans. You'll never hear Panda Bear on the radio, but Decemberists, Shins, etc aren't out of the question at all in coming years.